There must be grounds for doubt.

[_asbestosman]

I wonder, do you have a context outside of religion where you feel that knowledge would make you less free?

It is possible that knowing the time or manner of my death may make me less free by making me afraid. I suppose that knowledge of any event with sufficient emotional connection could make me less free because, like it or not, my emotions do influence my ability to think.

That being so, the question becomes to what extent do emotions about religion cloud my ability to make rational decisions about it?

[_brade]

Oddly, this very thing came up in chat the other day. To reiterate my points there:

1) The idea that beliefs are chosen (doxastic volunteerism) at all is quite questionable and a view I'd happily argue against.

2) Suppose beliefs are chosen. How does having information reduce the freedom of those choices? What's the relationship? If it is because information makes one option irresistibly compelling, doesn't that argue point #1?

3) Suppose #2 is resolved. Further suppose we have a state of affairs where the case for and against a complicated set of propositions like Mormonism is perfectly balanced. Isn't the rational thing to do then to withhold judgement rather than pick one? How can such a choice be called anything other than random?

4) Why is it a desirable thing to lack information sufficient to reasonably inform a choice? If I am to buy a car, I don't turn down the opportunity to look under the hood to achieve the greater good of being more "free" in my choice. Why would I? Even if we accept that knowledge harms one's freedom, that doesn't explain why such freedom is an overriding good that justifies withholding information.

5) It's awfully convenient that whatever amount of information Terryl thinks exists as a case for Mormonism is enough to not be "will-damaging" in a bad way, but anymore would be even though what people know varies through time and place. It reminds one of God just happening to explain whatever our current gaps in knowledge are.

Finally, it's worth noting that Mormon mythology is replete with countless examples of God both supplying fairly strong evidence of things to people and also fairly severely curtailing people's freedom of choice. Reconciling this fact with the above free will defense is a daunting project to say the least. Laughable, really.

+1

[_Blixa]

I find this opposition troubling:

a life of credible conviction or dismissive denial

It's so intellectually rotten it's hardly worth responding to.

[_EAllusion]

It's so intellectually rotten it's hardly worth responding to.

It's humorous that this is in reference to Mormonism of all things. One could just as emptily employ such rhetoric in favor of anything. But Givens did us a solid and showed how silly it is by picking something particularly absurd from the get go.

[_mentalgymnast]

So what makes the Mormon dogma of a pre-existance any more believable than that of reincarnation as taught by the International Society of Krishna Consciousness?

I suppose the idea that we can become like unto God and move out into infinity and beyond, worlds without end, progressing into the eternities, associating in family type units, rather than being in a closed loop, earth bound, body to body cycle until one:

...develops one’s original God consciousness, breaks free from the cycle of birth and death, and goes back home, back to Godhead.. "

http://www.krishna.com/questions-and-an ... ncarnation

makes more sense.

Just becoming part of a Godhead doesn't do it for me. And it's so individual, rather that social unit oriented, from what I can gather. But to each his/her own.

Moving towards Krishna consciousness, if it helps a person to achieve happiness and stability, is a good thing.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Clearly, a disingenuously narrow choice between Mormonism and skepticism.

Well, if you're in Mormonism, and Mormonism is your only choice in the whole big, wide world, then yes. But I don't think he's so narrow minded as to go that route.

There are other options that don't have to default to skepticism of anything having to do with religion or belief.

Regards,
MG

[_Darth J]

5) It's awfully convenient that whatever amount of information Terryl thinks exists as a case for Mormonism is enough to not be "will-damaging" in a bad way, but anymore would be even though what people know varies through time and place. It reminds one of God just happening to explain whatever our current gaps in knowledge are.

It's really quite simple. The evidence against Mormonism's truth claims and the lack of evidence for them should be given equal weight in choosing to believe in Mormonism.

Otherwise, you're just "choosing" not to believe Mormonism on the basis of overwhelming evidence against and nothing but sentimentality for.

In other words, "dismissive denial."

But EAllusion is wrong on one point:

Further suppose we have a state of affairs where the case for and against a complicated set of propositions like Mormonism is perfectly balanced. Isn't the rational thing to do then to withhold judgement rather than pick one?

The quote here from EAllusion almost makes it sound like one a priori believes in Mormonism and is working backwards from there to make it seem as if one's starting premise is really a conclusion. Or, euphemistically, "credible conviction."

And the answer is, no! We should "choose" Mormonism! Because......

Umm......

Well, it definitely isn't because of a preconceived, determinative belief in one's cherished beliefs that is impervious to evidence. So it must be some other reason, because the author is trying to make it appear as if this is all totally rational.

Therefore, there is a reason. And the reason is.....

Umm.......

Uhh.......

[_asbestosman]

Well, it definitely isn't because of a preconceived, determinative belief in one's cherished beliefs that is impervious to evidence. So it must be some other reason, because the author is trying to make it appear as if this is all totally rational.

Therefore, there is a reason. And the reason is.....

Umm.......

Uhh.......

Because it's true? ;)

[_Darth J]

Well, it definitely isn't because of a preconceived, determinative belief in one's cherished beliefs that is impervious to evidence. So it must be some other reason, because the author is trying to make it appear as if this is all totally rational.

Therefore, there is a reason. And the reason is.....

Umm.......

Uhh.......

Because it's true? ;)

I was wondering if anyone would notice the tautology I sneaked in there ("belief in one's beliefs").

But Asbestosman has won the thread.

We believe in the Church because it is true.

[_Corpsegrinder]

So what makes the Mormon dogma of a pre-existance any more believable than that of reincarnation as taught by the International Society of Krishna Consciousness?

I suppose the idea that we can become like unto God and move out into infinity and beyond, worlds without end, progressing into the eternities, associating in family type units, rather than being in a closed loop, earth bound, body to body cycle until one:

...develops one’s original God consciousness, breaks free from the cycle of birth and death, and goes back home, back to Godhead.. "

http://www.krishna.com/questions-and-an ... ncarnation

makes more sense.

Just becoming part of a Godhead doesn't do it for me. And it's so individual, rather that social unit oriented, from what I can gather. But to each his/her own.

Moving towards Krishna consciousness, if it helps a person to achieve happiness and stability, is a good thing.

Regards,
MG

I believe it was Buzz Lightyear who said "into infinity and beyond," not Joseph Smith. But thanks for identifying your personal opinions as exactly that--personal opinions.

Well, if you're in Mormonism, and Mormonism is your only choice in the whole big, wide world, then yes. But I don't think he's so narrow minded as to go that route.

Okay, so where exactly does he go anywhere other than "that route"?